Public Bill Committee

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]
BC 01 STEP, UNISON and Law Centre (Northern Ireland)

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome all members of the Committee to this sitting. It is a very pleasant day; I hope that the sun, with a few clouds[Interruption]. Did I hear an electronic device, Minister?

Phil Woolas: No, Sir Nicholas.

Nicholas Winterton: I always take the word of a Minister. There was no electronic device.

Simon Burns: Wrong Minister.

Nicholas Winterton: Anyway, I welcome you all and I am sure we shall continue to make progress. Before we begin, however, I inform the Committee that Officers of the House, printers, Ministers and Members of Parliament are not infallible. There was a printing mistake on the amendment paper before the Committee at its first sitting. The resolution agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, which I chaired, stated that the Committee should meet at 4.00 pm this afternoon, rather than 4.30 pm. Unfortunately, the motion before the Committee at its first meeting stated 4.30 pm. I am, however, very much of the view that although we have strict procedures in this place, flexibility when agreed across the Floor by the usual channels and Back-Bench Members can prevail. I understand that there is an agreement between the usual channels that they would like to return to the 4.00 pm start time this afternoon. To get things utterly correct, therefore, I invite the Minister to move a motion amending the Programme Order accordingly.
Ordered
That the Programming Order of 9th June be amended
Line 6, Leave out 4.30 pm and insert 4.00 pm. [Mr Woolas.]

Nicholas Winterton: That is extremely satisfactory. We can now proceed with the Bill. We have reached clause 48, and I have selected amendment 56 in the name of the hon. Gentleman from that famous constituency of Ashford.

Clause 48

Good character requirement

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 48, page 39, line 3, at end insert
(4A) In this section a person is not considered of good character if they have been convicted of any offence that is triable on indictment..
The purpose of the amendment is to explore one of the slightly unclear notions on the face of the Bill by inserting a new subsection (4A). I wish to explore what the Minister means, and what the legislation purports to mean, by of good character, because that underlies one of the key points of this part of the Bill on citizenship. I think it would clearly be uncontroversial across the Committee that people who are to be granted British citizenship should be of good character, so it is worth while for us to have a debate on what constitutes being of good character.
The background illustrates why the debate is so important: over the past 12 years under the Government, the number of grants of citizenship is at an all-time high. The number has more or less quadrupled since 1997; indeed, in 2007, the last year for which figures are available, the annual increase was itself 7 per cent. and the number was 164,635. By comparison, only 37,010 people were granted citizenship in 1997.
It is not for the Committee, while debating the amendment, to discuss whether that is a good or bad thing. However, from the tone of everything the Minister has said during our Committee debates and, indeed, since he became the Minister for Borders and Immigration, I imagine that he thinks that percentage is too much and that he is trying to slow down the flow. Indeed, this part of the Bill makes the process more difficult, as evinced by many of the protests that we are getting from people who will find it so.
To some extent, we can regard this part of the Bill as the Government slightly belatedly addressing the fact that the current test and regulations may not have fulfilled all the criteria that the Minister would wantor, indeed, that many others would want. The specific purpose of our amendment is to cover anyone who has been convicted of a serious offence, to ensure that they cannot be defined as being of good character and, therefore, eligible for a grant of citizenship.
A new British passport is granted every five minutes these daysthat is what those figures mean in time termsso we need to be absolutely sure that every one of those new passports goes to someone who will play a positive role in the life of this country. I assume that the Minister agrees that anyone convicted of a serious crime would not be covered under any definition of good character, so our amendment has the wording,
any offence that is triable on indictment,
which covers crimes that are triable either in court and indictable, or triable only in a Crown court. It is quite deliberately set at that level so that we exclude summary offences, such as motoring offences. There is always a balance to be struck in such definitions; we are not simply trying to exclude everyone who may have committed what most people would regard as minor offences, but we do particularly want to stop violent criminals.
Violent crime is growing alarmingly fast in this country, and one of the areas of particular resentment is when people discover that a violent crime has been committed by someone who may not have leave to remain here. That has knock-on effects on public confidence not just in the criminal justice system but also in the immigration system, so any move to clarify the position in respect of the commission of a violent crime by anyone who intends to settle in this country and gain citizenship will be an important step forward. To a large extent, I imagine that the Minister would agree. I am not trying to open up any particular controversy with the amendment, I am just seeking clarification about what the Government mean.

Tom Brake: If I understand the hon. Gentlemans amendment correctly, he is seeking to ensure that applications will not be considered if applicants have been convicted of,
any offence that is triable on indictment.
Could he clarify whether that is the same as anyone guilty of committing a criminal offence?

Damian Green: Not quite, because, as I have just explained, certain minor offences are not covered by being triable on indictment. I suspect that the whole Committee would agree that they might not wish such things as parking fines, or even minor motoring offences, to be covered. We might not wish automatically to exclude people for ever from obtaining British citizenship for that kind of offence; equally, there will be no controversy about the fact that anyone who has committed a serious offence should not be considered as of good character and, therefore, should not be eligible for citizenship. Triable on indictment is the term of art that one can use to say, in essence, that it would catch most people who have committed criminal offences, apart from the most trivial ones. As I said, it is an exploratory amendment and I hope the Minister will agree with it.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Member for Ashford for tabling amendment 56 and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for tabling amendment 54. It gives me the opportunity to explain

Nicholas Winterton: Order. May I advise the Minister that I have selected separately amendment 54, which he has just mentioned? There will be a separate debate on that amendment.

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I was premature in my thanks to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. I was simply trying to recognise what I believe to be the good intent behind the amendments, which seek to explore the Governments intentions.
If you will allow me, Sir Nicholas, I refer the Committee to page 35 of the explanatory notes, which provides the context for clause 48. With the clause, we are moving the existing law on the requirement of good character from the Immigration Act 1971 into nationality law. As I mentioned in our opening sitting, this is part of the jigsaw puzzle that is trying to prepare the way for the simplification Bill. The clause shows the beautiful symmetry of our legislation and I hope that the Committee will support it.
Amendment 56, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Ashford, addresses the understanding and definition of good character. There has been a good character requirement for naturalisationnot indefinite leave to remainsince the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1 January 1983. That requirement was subsequently added to by other registration provisions, particularly those in section 58 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The requirement applies to adults and minors over the age of 10. We chose 10 as it is the age of criminal responsibility in England and Walesit is not the same in overseas dependencies or Scotland, but we thought it was consistent with common sense. There is no definition of good character in the 1981 Act. Thus, there is no statutory guidance as to how the requirement should be interpreted or tested. The amendment is extremely helpful in teasing that out.
Let me explain why we prefer that approach. In considering whether the good character requirement is met, we have taken into account a range of criteria. We would not expect to naturalise a person if they did not respect or were not prepared to abide by the law, if their financial affairs were not in order, if their activities were notorious and cast serious doubt about their standing in the community, if they had practised deceit in their dealings with the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions or Her Majestys Revenue and Customs, or if they had assisted in the evasion of immigration control. All applicants over the age of 10 are subject to criminal records checks; the exceptions are applications from British nationals to register as British citizens and applications from certain stateless persons. Results from checks against the police national computer are considered, as are Interpol notices. Where applicants are identified as subject to international arrest warrants, the police are advised and extradition is considered.
The policy on criminal convictions has recently been tightened. Until 31 December 2007, the agency applied clear periods, as we call thema set time after which they will be prepared to disregard a persons conviction. These were generally shorter than the rehabilitation periods set out in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. On 5 December 2007, however, the then Home Secretary announced a new policy which came into force on 1 January 2008. Any applications for citizenship received on or after that date are normally refused if the applicant has a conviction that has not become spent under the 1974 Act. It is that read-across that answers the question put by the hon. Member for Ashford.
We would not normally expect to grant citizenship to a person with a conviction that he has not spent under that Act. That includes people who have been to prison and those with non-custodial sentences. There is discretion to grant citizenship to an individual with a single unspent conviction resulting in a bind-over, conditional discharge or relatively small fine or compensation order where the applicant is of good character in all other respects. Typically, it is used for regulatory offences such as a speeding offence.
The amendment seeks to bar from citizenship anyone who has a conviction for an offence that can be tried on an indictment. In my view, the amendment does not consider the purpose and effects of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which meets the point the hon. Member for Ashford is making. The Act provides for a persons conviction not to be held against themfor it to become spentafter a specified period, except in relation to certain sentences, including custodial convictions of more than 30 months. As worded, the amendment would catch only indictable offences and also offences that are triable either wayin a magistrates court or a Crown courtbecause an indictable offence can be heard, in some cases, in either. That does not, therefore, parallel the 1974 Act.
In any event, either-way offences range from unlawful wounding to shoplifting and it is likely that many people convicted of such offences will not receive custodial sentences. Even for offences triable only on indictment, it is entirely possible that a sentence of 30 months or less could be set down by the court. The amendment has the effect of proposing that we disregard the fact that the 1974 Act would currently class such a conviction as having become spent.
From what hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, have said, they would not wish to include those whose convictions were spent under that legislation as that would be contrary to the principles of the British justice system. The amendment would preclude many people who have spent offences from acquiring British citizenship and therefore could be described as too punitive. However, I reiterate the point that a person who has a conviction that will never become spent, meaning that they have received a sentence of 30 months or more for their crimes, is not normally regarded as satisfying the good character requirement. It was the intention of my noble Friends in the other place to ensure that people who commit serious crimes do not have an avenue to acquire British citizenship. I can reassure the Committee that that is already Government policy.
As to the associated question that arises from the amendmentshould the requirements of good character be established in primary legislation, rather than be at the discretion of the Secretary of State?we take the view that it is prudent to continue to apply the character test in its current form via the discretion rather than by establishing specific requirements in primary legislation. The reason is that it enables the Secretary of State of the day to continue to exercise discretion in exceptional cases. For example, there might be an applicant for citizenship who had not had criminal convictions but it might be that information held by the police would nevertheless mean that the Home Secretary could not be satisfied that he or she was of good character. Conversely, there might be exceptional circumstances in which the Home Secretary might want to grant citizenship to someone with an unspent conviction. Applying the good character test by way of the existing discretionary powers also gives the Home Secretary the option to overlook minor regulatory offences, such as speeding.

Damian Green: To put this part of the Ministers explanation in context, can he give us any ideaI appreciate that it will be roughof the number of times that the Home Secretarys discretion has been exercised in the past few years? In particular, how has it been exercised? Is it more likely that the Home Secretary will bar someone who would otherwise be disqualified, or let in someone who would otherwise not be qualified? That information would be helpful to the Committee.

Phil Woolas: It is a difficult question. I agree with the hon. Gentlemans intent on citizenshipI take what he said as a compliment. I can give him some overall statistics. In the period 2003-08, 9,732 applications were refused on good character grounds. Those are total refusals, which does not answer the specific point that he made.
The hon. Gentleman gave figures about the increase in citizenships. Some of that is as a result of our doing things more quickly and better, so the number will flatten outone should not take the steepness of the slope as a trajectory for the future; it reflects, in part, better processing and is something that, presentationally, we suffer from. On the specific question of how many people are in the former category and how many in the latter, I will have to come back to the hon. Gentleman. It is a very interesting question. If we were to put that rigid criterion, particularly on the former category, in immigration law, it would take away that discretion. There could be a situation whereby a person the authorities had good reason to believe might not be of good character, but who did not have a conviction as described under the 1974 Act, could not be excluded on those grounds, and we would be challenged, in practice, in the courts, including, I suspect, in foreign courts. I do not have official figures on the two examples I have given, I am afraid. I will have to investigate and come back to the hon. Gentleman on that.
I certainly agree with the intent; indeed, I go a bit further. I think that the specific problemI am not trying to score points on the indictable elementis the twin court approach; it could be a magistrates court or a jury court. Having said that, we believe it is right to define what we mean by good character, using the legislation that is about thatthe 1974 Actand apply that to immigration and allow that discretion. I hope that helps in providing the information that the amendment seeks to draw out.

Damian Green: I am grateful for that explanation, which is half satisfactory. I appreciate everything the Minister said about the read-across from the 1974 Act and how it is important to maintain consistency there. That is a valid point and I can see why he might regard that as superior to the formulation we have come up with. I note en passant, however, that this may be one of the few times since the Minister took office when he has found something that we have suggested more draconian than what he is prepared to support. There is a small historic footnote to be made here.

Phil Woolas: It depends how you use the discretion.

Damian Green: Indeed so. I was going to come on to the discretion which the Minister has just talked about from a sedentary position, because that is where I am less satisfied. The second part of the explanation he has just given was explaining the legislative basis, which anyone applying for citizenship could look at, could find out about, particularly in the wake of this debate, as a result of which they would know whether they had committed an offence that meant they were not of good character and would not be eligible for British citizenship. It seems that if we are passing laws in this place, that kind of clarity is something to which we should aspire, so that part of the speech was fine. In the first part, however, the Minister said there were a number of other considerations thatas he put itwe take into account. They were all fairly vague: whether there were financial offences or financial difficulties, and so on.
That led in to the Ministers final point about the Secretary of States discretion, which can be applied both ways. The Committee ought to be slightly worried about that. Allowing the Home Secretary and Home Office of the day so much discretion to decide on something as important as whether people are of good character or not, makes me uneasyparticularly as Committee members are seeing no hard and fast rules and criteria that the Home Secretary is obliged to apply. One can imagine periods where Home Secretaries might be encouraged either to be unnecessarily draconian, or unnecessarily lax, for certain groups of people that might have engaged the public imagination. It might go either way, with people saying, These people must be granted citizenship, or These people must not, under any circumstances, be granted citizenship. The principle of the Home Secretarys having that degree of discretion about issues as important as not only granting citizenship, but also the formal decision about whether somebody is of good character or not, concerns me. That sort of thing ought to be set down in legislation.
I accept the Ministers explanation of the objective criteria that had been used since the 1981 Act, and why those may be superior to the objective criteria in our amendment. However, the less objective parts of his explanation should give the Committee some pause for thought because they allow too much discretion to the Home Secretary of the day. I will, with the Committees permission, withdraw the amendment, but the debate has been useful because it has given rise to that unease, and I would hope the Minister will consider that for future stages of the Bill.

Phil Woolas: I think the question I was unable to answer is important. The numbers will give us a better idea. I will return to that point.

Damian Green: I am very grateful, and my question was asked partly to elucidate the practical effects of the uncertainty around the edges. However, whatever the numbers are, there is a principle at stake about what kind of discretion Ministers should have in that area, when it is perfectly possible to find objective criteria. There could be criteria that people either pass or failthat could be discussed openly by the House, be passed into legislation and then be known to everyone involved in the sectoror there could be this pattern of discretion around the edge. Perhaps, as a principle in this kind of decision making, the less discretion, the better. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tom Brake: I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 48, page 39, leave out lines 6 to 11.

This amendment removes Hong Kong war wives and widows from the list of those who must satisfy a good character requirement to register as British.
This is a simple amendment, the effect of which is to remove the requirement of a good character test for those Hong Kong war wives and widows eligible to register as British citizens. That would apply to very few women. In the House of Lords, Lord Brett stated that only 53 women had ever been eligible to apply under the provision, and that there had been no applications for the past eight years. The amendment would support the Governments intention to simplify the law as it relates to British citizenship.
I hope other Members would agree that the circumstances where the Government are retaining a legal requirement that will never be used in practice can hardly be considered sensible. I understand the Government have argued that to remove that character test would set a precedent for others but I, certainly, support the view expressed by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association; the only precedent it sets is in applying the good character test where it is silly to do so, because we know that it will never be used in practice.
I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some sort of detailed explanation of why the Government think it necessary to retain such a good character test for a group of women who are very unlikely at all ever to need to pass it because, as there have been no applications for the past eight years and they are, clearly, getting older, the likelihood of anyone seeking British citizenship by this route is quite remote. I await the Ministers response with interest.

Damian Green: I simply want to draw the Ministers attention to the debate on the same amendment when it was moved in another place, because I thought that the Ministers response in another place was completely admirable. Lord Brett said,
I shall keep my response short, if not slow. A powerful case has been made. I have the brief. The sensible thing is for the Government to reconsider the issue, and I give that commitment[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2009; Vol. 708, c. 751.]
When a Government Minister in another place looks at his brief and decides that it is such rubbish that he cannot even bring himself to read it out, I suggest that the Minister should pay heed. I commend the openness and honesty of Lord Brett; while he did not quite put it in the way that I have just done, that is clearly what he meant.
Indeed, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has just said, in practical terms there is an extremely powerful case to be made, and I dare say that the Minister will want to address the issue of precedent. That is clearly the genuine issue that the Committee needs to assesswhether this would actually be a way to open the floodgates to large numbers of others of whom the Committee might not take the same view. Certainly, as now drawn, the amendment will affect a small and diminishing number of wholly admirable women and it would, on the surface, appear slightly churlish behaviour by this country to insist on their meeting these tests.

Nicholas Winterton: The Committee awaits the Ministers reply with very considerable interest.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Member for Ashford has my brief spot on, because the arguments in it about the specifics of the hon. Gentlemans amendment run to several pages and the argument on the crucial point runs to two paragraphs. He has predicted my response with uncanny accuracy. My noble friend Lord Brett, who brings to the Dispatch Box years of pragmatic trade union negotiation experience, can spot a good argument when there is one, and it is his privilege to pass the buck in this regard.
However, I have looked at this and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is right; his argument is, within itself, powerful. I come to our analysis of it. The two wordsor the acronym plus wordILPA precedent set alarm bells ringing in the mind of any self-respecting immigration Minister. We fight, if that is the right word, a constant ongoing legal battle over precedents in immigration law. I shall put the background to this on the record, then ask the Committee to consider the way forward.
The Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) Act 1996, which formed part of the arrangements for the handover of Hong Kong to China, came into force on 18 July 1996. It provides for the discretionary registration as British citizens of the wives, widows and divorcees of men who fought in the defence of Hong Kong during the second world war. A woman would be eligible for registration if she was a resident of Hong Kong, and a recipient of a letter from the Home Secretary confirming that she could settle in the UK on the basis of the mans wartime service, and if she was no longer married to the man concerned, had not remarriedto avoid the transfer of rights to the new husband, or subsequent husbands.
The 1996 Act is unusual in that it applies only to a very small and finite number of people. It only ever affected, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington rightly said, a maximum of 53 women. That is the number of woman, for the record, who were actually issued with a letter. A further unique feature of this provision was that, unlike most other applications for citizenship, there was no fee for registration, such was the generosity of the Home Secretary. So those qualifying are treated favourably compared with other applicants.
As has been said, the subject was debated in another place, and in recognition of the particular circumstances of these women, the then Home Secretary indicated that she would be prepared to consider exercising discretion on the application in respect of the good character requirement, should any of these women apply in the future and this issue arose. That statement has force, not just policy intent; so if one of these women wished to apply, and had committed an offence that would prevent her from meeting the good character requirement in normal circumstancesthe guidance on the website on those criteria is quite specificthe Home Secretary would be willing to consider overlooking it.
The Home Secretary also indicated that she would be prepared to consider, in exercising that discretion, the caveat that, while we are prepared to exercise that discretion if necessary in these particular circumstances, we do not think it wise to amend the law in this respect. To remove the legal requirement in this case would, we are advised, set a precedent for removing it from other sections, and we think this is an important requirement for potential citizens to fulfil. It is indeed that point that we are concerned about.

Tom Brake: I just wondered whether the Minister was going to come on to what other sections he thought this was going to set a precedent for.

Phil Woolas: I am not being evasive, nor am I waiting for inspiration. The advice one generally receives is that, to mention those specific precedents could, in and of itself, set the precedent. It is a Catch-22

Tom Brake: Indicated assent.

Phil Woolas: I am very grateful for the nodding of the head. The hon. Gentleman is at least recognising the point I am making; he is not necessarily agreeing with it. Very helpfully and sensibly, Lord Brett, who has negotiated more agreements than the United Nations in his timethey have stood better as well, in most instancesalso had a caveat to the passage that the hon. Member for Ashford read out. He added in column 1095 that the discretion of the Home Secretary would resolve the problem behind the amendment. So he recognised that the problem was there, in his common-sense statement that the hon. Gentleman read out, but he also said the discretion provision would meet the objectives. I hope I have convinced the hon. Gentleman that we support the intent regarding Hong Kong; the discretion is therethe Home Secretary said she would use it, and that is the policy of the Governmentwithout setting a precedent that we fear the amendment could set.

Tom Brake: I did hear the Ministers explanation. Other members will perhaps also have been entertained by the Ministers confirmation that making this change might set a precedent that would be relevant to other clauses. He cannot mention those other clauses as mentioning them would set a precedent. The Minister has not entirely elucidated the matter, although I understand his point. It is regrettable that this minor change has not been made; it would have been doing the right thing for a small number of women. However, I understand the Ministers explanation and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Meaning of references to being in breach of immigration laws

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Phil Woolas: Very briefly, this clause is also part of the jigsaw puzzle. The clause title is a phrase that occurs in various parts of nationality legislation and, like the good character requirement in clause 48, is not a new requirement, as is explained in the explanatory notes. We are moving it into the 1981 British Nationality Act so that it sits alongside the provisions to which it relates. It does not change policy or the law in its application; it moves the piece of legislation from nationality law to immigration law. As such, it is part of the simplification process to achieve greater consistency within our legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Entry otherwise than by sea or air: immigration control

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 34 and 37.
Government new clause 3Common Travel Area.
I think that the Minister should rise to his feet.

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for that ruling, which I believe is helpful to our understanding of this clause.
Let me explain what we are doing here. As it stands, clause 51 concerns the common travel area of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the smaller islandsthe Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and so on. We have moved new clause 3 to replace clause 51; I will be asking the Committee to reject the stand part motion. The common travel area derives from section 1(3) of the Immigration Act 1971, which relates to a person arriving in the United Kingdom from any of the islands or the Republic of Ireland. That has governed travel between these two countries since that time and, indeed, before it. Amendments 34 and 37 are consequential on new clause 3. I should also draw attention to the fact that amendment 31 would be opposed, although I think that has not actually been selected.

Nicholas Winterton: No, it has not.

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I would have opposed it, had it been, for consistency reasons.
The world is very different from the place it was when the common travel area came into existence. There is much more travel, and it is faster and relatively cheaper for those who make journeys. Because that is the case for legal journeys, it is also true for illegal journeys, whether they involve illegal migrants and/or those who are engaged in criminal activity. The common travel area that defines the border controls or lack thereof, is by its nature presenting a risk to border control. It is being exploited by illegal immigrants and serious organised crime to assist their criminal activity. We saw that in the press very recently, when an investigation by the French immigration forces exposed a criminal gang that was bringing people in club class from Paris to the United Kingdom, via Ireland. That took advantage of the common travel area. Our evidence is that there are some 8,000 immigration offenders travelling each year between the Republic of Ireland and the UK on air and sea routes alone.

Crispin Blunt: Could the Minister explain to the Committee how many immigration offenders are in the United Kingdom? We have to put that 8,000 in context.

Phil Woolas: We apprehended 28,000 clandestine entries last year. That is not visa abuse but, in laypersons terms, people who have got in on the back of a lorry. Overall, in terms of people here illegallyI am picking this phrase very carefullyI think the hon. Gentleman knows that nobody knows. By definition, one does not know.

Crispin Blunt: The point I wanted to make is that when the Minister says 8,000 immigration offenders, it could be drawn from a category of over 1 million people resident in the United Kingdom.

Phil Woolas: The figure of 8,000 is our estimate of the clandestine and organised illegal routes. To compare like with like, you would have to look at the following. Basically, we believe the criminal gangs try to organise routes through our ports, particularly through Calais to Dover, through the tunnel and on the ferries. The more effective we have been at closing those routes off, the more alternative routes have come into playparticularly Ireland.
Let me answer the hon. Gentlemans question more specifically. To give a like for like comparison, the number of illegal immigrants detected in Kent was 14,600 in 2001, and it was 1,800 last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover has raised this issue in the House on many occasions and I would argue that this figure shows the success of the border controls there. The number of detections through visa fingerprinting in 2008 was around 4,000. That refers to cases identified for the whole of the system where the detection has been based exclusively on fingerprints. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some comparison for the scale of the problem we are dealing with.

Paul Rowen: On the Ministers figure of 8,000, the Republic of Ireland operates a border system, so if someone is going from Calais to Dublin, are they not apprehended by the Irish authorities, or are they not operating a border system?

Phil Woolas: That is a very good point. The Republic of Ireland has indeed introduced an electronic borders system similar to ours. We are responsible for the United Kingdom, however, and of course the Republic of Irelands visa arrangements are up to them. It is also true, of course, that the European Union non-Schengen countries include the Republic of Ireland as well as the UK, so we do have common cause with Ireland, but the problem goes both ways. The argument that the hon. Gentleman has put is put very forcibly the other way round in Dublin, because of the number of transits and because the Republic of Ireland is an EU country. The powers that we are asking for in the new clause and the amendments, in rejecting the proposed clause as it stands, do exist in similar terms in Ireland, including at the land border, as I will go on to argue.
The hon. Member for Reigate, in asking about the 8,000, raises an important point. Our particular concern is about organised crime. The claim has been made that our proposed clause abolishes the common travel area. It is not our policy, nor our intent, nor the practical impact of our proposals to abolish the common travel area. We have reconfirmed our commitment to that, because of the social and economic benefits that it brings. It is the third-country nationals who are illegal who are of concern to us. Our changes will not prevent British citizens or Irish nationals entering freely, as they do now, and we do not anticipate that there will be a noticeable impact on the journey for the vast majority of passengers. The CTA is based on the principle that, once a person has been granted leave to enter one part of the CTA, they will not normally require leave to enter the UK. That point does not change. Those who enter the UK from another part of the CTA will be able to enter freely, unless they fall within an excepted categoryfor example, those who are subject to an outstanding deportation order.
In order to preserve its benefits, we need a proportionate response to the risks we now face. We remain committed to working with Ireland to further secure the external CTA borderthe point the hon. Member for Rochdale makesbut we must also act to protect our borders by allowing for immigration controls on those travelling on intra-CTA routes. The concept of immigration control within the CTA is not new. The Irish Government do not believe such controls are inimical to the CTA; as I have said, they have applied an immigration control on third-country nationals arriving directly from the UK for more than a decade.
The UK does not currently have the clear legislative power to control non-European economic area/third-country nationals entering the UK from elsewhere in the CTA. The Government believe that that is simply not acceptable, especially as we need to tighten our borders in order to face up to the risks that the modern world faces and the increase in global movement of people. That is why we are seeking to reinstate the Government's original clause, which is new clause 3, which was taken out in the other place, to enable controls on air and sea routes for people travelling within the common travel area and an ability by Order in Council to control the land border, subject to parliamentary approval, under section 10.
We believe that the power will be used proportionately on all routes. Those travelling by air and sea between the Republic of Ireland and the UK will be required to carry a passport or national identity card. We will also use the e-Borders system to increase our ability to respond proportionately to threat. We propose a very modest use of the power in relation to journeys from the Crown dependencies, the islands, because we know that the risk is much lower, although I must guard against displacementthe possibility that the tougher a control is made, the more displacement can occur to other areas. There are examples of small air and sea craft being used to get round our border controls, for purposes of illegal migration and illegal entry of goods.

Damian Green: The logic of the Ministers argument is that there are weaknesses in the Irish Governments border controls. Does he think that Irish border controls are better or worse than UK border controls?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentlemans policy of opposing e-Borders, or the bits of them with relevance to the question, would, if applied to the Republic of Ireland, create an open back door into the United Kingdom. That is the practical answer, and the hon. Gentlemans policy needs to change. As he knows, and as I said on Second Reading, I am not responsible for border control in the Republic of Ireland, and I imagine that if I suggested I were there would be severe political implications, for which I should not want to be held responsible.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, however, in that there is a challenge for us allI think that the question was raised on Second Readingwith respect to the benefits of travel by Irish nationals and UK citizens between our two countries; the island dependencies are relevant as well. How do we keep the advantage and not disrupt the travel experience, and yet have effective control of the border? The powers that we are taking are powers to require the carrying of identification. They are not powersexcept with respect to third-country nationals, for whom we would want to take those powersto stop travel. We cannot, under the powers, restrict freedom of movement for Irish nationals and UK citizens; this is about the third-country nationals.
Clause 51 as it stands prevents any form of immigration control on those who have arrived in the UK over the land border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I want to make it clear that both political and practical considerations mean that fixed or routine controls on the land border are not a viable option; but that does not mean that we, or the Republic of Ireland, should do nothing. Tightening controls on air and sea routes without making provision for any activity on the land border would increase the risk of displacement and at the same time reduce our ability to tackle it. We would push the criminal gangs on to the land routethose that are not already using it. That would clearly undermine our intention of strengthening the border and, indeed, reforming the CTA.
We propose, on the land border, the capacity to mount targeted, intelligence-led operations in response to the level of threat. There will be no routine presence at the border. We will not require persons crossing the land border to carry a passport or national identity document.

Paul Rowen: Given the past history of the troubles in Northern Ireland, surely we already have powers to stop anyone moving between the borders, without the need for the present imposition. If not, what did we do during the troubles?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman asks the question that I asked when being briefed on the debate in the other place. We do not currently have the clear power to control persons entering the UK by that route. As it stands, clause 51 would prevent us from having it. In relation to immigrationnot in relation to other powers for which the Bill is not responsibleif we have reason to believe that illegal migration is taking place across that border, we do not have the power to deal with it. I ask the Committee to give us that power.

Paul Rowen: I hear what the Minister says but he talked about criminal activity. There seems to be a great deal of confusion in the Home Office about the use of the powers.

Phil Woolas: There is no confusion in the Home Office. There is an urgent request to Parliament to grant us the power that we need. I agree that there has been confusion over the interpretation of what is being proposed, for good and perhaps not such good reasons. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the potential misrepresentation of the policy in parts of the United Kingdom and in Ireland. Again we come to the crux of the powers we are seeking. To stop immigration and customs abuse, we believe that our officials need those powers. Currently, we have to deal with those activities that may be related to criminal activity after they have taken place. With the powers, we will be able to deal with them at that border, as we do at airports and other borders.

Paul Rowen: I am listening very carefully to the Ministers explanation. He quoted a figure of 8,000 illegal immigrants. Page 8 of the summary table in the impact assessment, which refers to the 10-year cost or benefit, includes the reduction in imported asylum cases, and abuse of the immigration system, as not quantified; increased border security as not quantified; the reduction in the number of illegal migrants and potential reduction in illegal working as not quantified; and the reduction in cross-border crime, including serious organised crime, as not quantified. If the Minister is seriously asking us to accept his amendment, he needs to do a lot better than the other place and what he has provided in the information before us.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his perceptive comments and for reading the impact assessment. The matter he raises relates to displacement. In border control, one continually deals with displacement: displacement of routes through Europe and from other parts of the world into Europe, and displacement of criminal activity in relation to drug smuggling. For example, because of the success of our forces in the Caribbean, cocaine smuggling from South America is now often displaced to western Africa. He will have seen reports of the operations to stop cocaine smuggling via the Republic of Ireland. I refer him to the case last year where we tracked across the Atlantic a yacht bound for Ireland. In terms of the overall impact, there is no figure, as he rightly points out. There are other factors to bear on that. Estimates and impact assessments have to be justifiable. They are not based on the whim of the Minister. My figure of 8,000 relates to the number of people who we estimate, through our intelligence and security forces, have been able to abuse that bordernot just the land border, but the air and sea routes as well.
No one knows exactly how much abuse there has been. We use intelligence from, for example, country of origin, those who have been involved in people-trafficking routes and the underground. It is not a scientific process, therefore. I can assert, however, with absolute certainty that there is an Achilles heel in our border control. The measures on the common travel area are designed to address that.

Tom Brake: May I follow on from my hon. Friends point? If I understand correctly, the Minister said that we cannot make an estimate simply because there will be displacement, but surely if the Government are ratcheting up safeguards, that displacement will, logically, be smaller. I am surprised that the Minister and his officials cannot estimate what reductions might be achieved.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Clearly, we believe that although strengthening the border will displace activity, the effect of that will be diminished by putting that protection around us. It is not normal for an impact assessment to quantify the social benefits, which was one point that was made. When considering clamping down, we have not looked just at the impact of the Bill. In my view, the electronic borders will be the biggest beneficiary of strengthening that border, along with finger-printed visas.
In addition to my point about displacement, it would be misleading to consider the specific impact of the Bill in isolation and divorced from our other measures, and that it might be saidnot by you, Sir Nicholas, because you would be impartial, as everthat my claims were unfounded, exaggerated, under-exaggerated, or whatever. I have had recent experience in the House of making specific claims on numbersI think hon. Members know what I am talking aboutso I decided on a different approach. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale on spotting that. I did not think that anyone would, but they did.

Damian Green: I admire the Minister for reading his brief with a straight face. He said that immigration controls are an important part of the legislation that he is trying to reintroduce into this part of Bill, and that there will be no routine human checks at the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I gently suggest that if he told the hon. Member for Dover, whom he praised for his work on the matter, that there would be intelligence-led operations at Dover, but that there would be no routine immigration presence to stop illegal immigration there, the hon. Gentleman would have a word with him because he would think that that was inadequate. As there will not a routine presence at the border, for sensible reasons, to claim that it will make a serious difference to illegal immigration across that border does not wash.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful again, because the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to try to convince him of the folly of his own policy. The land border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is as I have said, and I do not believe that any hon. Member would seriously propose the sort of control of the land border that we have in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and nearby[Interruption.]. The juxtaposed border in Calais is directly relevant, as my hon. Friend said.
The position of third country nationals is captured by the e-borders passenger recordsthe hon. Gentleman quoted what I said about the land borderintelligence-based operations and risk assessment. We have that weapon at our disposal on air and sea routes, and we also have the passenger records from the e-borders arrangements, both for those coming into the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland and for those going to the Republic of Ireland or to the Crown dependencies. We are developing memorandums of understanding, because there is a displacement point relating to small ships. When I say that we are not taking those powers and not abolishing the common travel area, that is in the context of the new information that we have. We already have that intelligence when a passenger gets on a plane or boat, just as we do when someone arrives at Calais, to which we have effectively exported the border, or when someone gets on a plane in Lagos or New York. That is the great advantage. The e-borders system requires information on passengers and crew relating to their identityname and passport number, just to reassure the libertariansand we obtain that information from carriers operating to and from the UK.
The Irish are developing their own version of that proposal. The total e-borders data to be collected from carriers operating air and sea routes between the UK and Ireland have that information, as with all other routes to and from the UK. In that way, my proposition that the passenger experience will not be noticeably disrupted stands. In fact, the vast majority of passengers already carry their passports or identity cards, but we have, of course, had conversations with the carriers on that.
My fear with clause 51 as it stands is that in attempting to maintain the common travel area as was, it is not fit for purpose for the modern world. I refer the Committee to an article in the Daily Express of 14 May 2008 headed Now migrants are smuggled in club class, in which an investigative journalist exposed an illegal route into the UK through the Republic of Ireland. It reports the exposure and capture by French forces of people-traffickers using a route from Paris, organised from a small flat just opposite the Gare du Nord, to the UK via the Republic of Ireland through the loophole I described. The people-traffickers were charging up to £10,000 for each person to be smuggled in, booking them on club class on the airlines from Dublin to the UK and making £500,000 in just nine months. The French immigration authorities said that the migrants were corralled in safe houses before being taken to small regional airports in France for flights to Ireland, bound for Britain. They said that they had worked closely with the UK Border Agency to expose a highly sophisticated route.
The hon. Member for Ashford, having been approached by the Daily Express journalist for his comments on that successful operation, said:
We should be worried that smugglers are confident that they can bypass our passport and visa systems. These should be the strongest part of our defences against illegal immigration, certainly not a weak spot.
If he wants to close down the weak spots, he should support new clause 3 and reject the advice of his noble Friends in the other place who harked back through rose-tinted spectacles to days that I suspect never existed. We should put into place a modern border control that gives us the advantage of the common free travel area but makes real the words of the hon. Gentleman.
Damian Greenrose

Phil Woolas: I will give way because I have another quote.

Damian Green: I am delighted that the Minister spends his time keeping abreast of not only the classics, but all my quotes in the Daily Express. He said specifically that he will rely on intelligence-led operations. I invite him to commit himself now to support our new clause 2, which would set up a proper border police force so that precisely the weaknesses that I criticised can be addressed by a specialist police force that will be much more effective at intelligence-led operations than the current system. That is the way to resolve weakness at the borders.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman says that I am relying specifically on intelligence-led operations, but I am not relying only on them. I repeat that the e-Borders system that counts people in and out of this country is the first introduction of border control since its abolition in 1994. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) pointed out that that is the first reintroduction of border control. I am teasing the hon. Member for Ashford is because he cannot, on the one hand, come into this House with a libertarian approach towards border control and support the general thrust of the philosophy of his party, with which I disagree but respect, and, on the other hand, regularly give quotes to tabloid journalists to show how tough his party is. His party has to make its mind up. I suspect that the vote on new clause 3 will separate the two parties.

Damian Green: The Minister has already admitted that he has problems with figures. He has just said that 1994 was when border controls were removed, but he will know that it was actually 1998 when border controls within the European Union were removed. Furthermore, since we are discussing Britain and the Republic of Ireland, he might note that the two countries are members of the EU, so it was actually his Government that removed border controls between those two countries.

Phil Woolas: The abolition of border controls started in 1994.

Damian Green: Not inside the EU.

Phil Woolas: My Government, as I have said before, continued that process, but we are now reintroducing those border controls and I am appealing for consensus on that.
In relation to the comment about the EU, we rightly did not sign up to the Schengen agreement and nor did the Republic of Ireland. To address the hon. Gentlemans point about travel movements between the two countries, we have the benefits of the common travel area and we now require the powers to control illegal or potentially illegal third country non-European economic area activities. The e-Borders system and the powers in the new clause give us the opportunity to do so.
Sir Nicholas, I am straying off the subject of new clause 3, so I will draw my remarks to a close.

Nicholas Winterton: May I help the Committee? This is, of course, a clause stand part debate and it is my understanding that the Government will vote against clause 51. As part of that debate, we are also discussing Government amendments 34 and 37 and Government new clause 3, but of course we will be dealing with those measures formally, as and when we reach them.

Crispin Blunt: I have responsibilities for security and counter-terrorism in our home affairs team, which is why I am leading on the subject for the Opposition.
I may have to apologise, Sir Nicholas, for the fact that my arguments are not cast in the emollient manner shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. It is difficult to share that manner, given the pasting that the Governments arguments have already taken. The best that the Minister has been able to do is to adduce a misleading quote from the Daily Express in support of his arguments. That gives a sense of the quality of the case that is being presented to the Committee.
In the light of everything that has happened to the Government and to the Minister over the past few months, it is astonishing that they have returned to a measure that was so roundly defeated in another place. Their actions have all the hallmarks of their wearingly repetitive inability to listen and learn from their experience. One wonders if they are now so punch-drunk, because of everything that has overtaken them, that they cannot change direction, even if common sense dictates that they should and even if the margin of a vote by 193 to 107 in the other place suggests that there are one or two problems with their proposals.
Typically, the measure began life in a consultation called Strengthening the Common Travel Areaan example of the Orwellian doublespeak that is another of the hallmarks of new Labour, as it will plainly weaken the common travel area and, some people argue, effectively abolish it altogether. Although the arguments adduced for the measure have changed since the beginning of the consultation, they are largely based on unsupported statement and instinct. As we heard in the interventions from the hon. Member for Rochdale, they are also based on unquantified assumptions.
The proposals are offensive in principle to many of our fellow citizens. They are careless of the constitutional implications for Britains relations with her dependencies, and their effectiveness will be undermined by a gaping hole in the practical applications of the measuresnamely, the UK-Ireland land border. Furthermore, they will be expensive and damaging to the tourist industry; and, even according to the Governments figures, they will entail a significant cost. A much more sensible alternative strategy is available to achieve the objectives that the Government have set themselves.
I shall address the so-called strengthening of the common travel area. The Minister insisted, as did Lord West in another place, that neither the original Bill, nor the amendments before us, will undermine the common travel area. I am afraid that I fail to see how that can be. Government new clause 3 will amend the following words in section 1(3) of the Immigration Act 1971:
Arrival in and departure from the United Kingdom on a local journey from or to any of the Islands (that is to say, the Channel Islands and Isle of Man) or the Republic of Ireland shall not be subject to control under this Act.
If that wording is to be struck out, will it not now be the case that those persons entering the United Kingdom from the Channel Islands, Isle of Man or from the Republic of Ireland are subject to control? Have I misunderstood the common travel area as a concept altogether? Was the free passage of individuals without the need to present identification or submit themselves to immigration controls never its true purpose?
Furthermore, the Minister seeks to amend the 1971 Act explicitly to exclude the common travel area when defining embarkation and disembarkation. The new clause will, if passed, strike from the Act the lines:
or elsewhere in the common travel area,
so that embarking for a local journey or disembarking after a local journey applies only within the United Kingdom. If striking the common travel area from the exemption in terminology is not altering the very nature of the common travel area, I do not know what is.
A brief trawl through the Governments previous utterances on this matter reveals their true intentions. The original consultation document makes it clear that the Ministers predecessor at the Home Office intended the legislation on the common travel area to go further. The consultation states that the Government intended to
carry out checks on passengers and their documents on sea and air routes arriving and departing from the UK to the Republic of Ireland for border control purposes. The nature of the examination by an immigration officer will depend upon a passengers status as a CTA national or a non-CTA national.
When the workability of that was roundly rejected in the responses to the Governments consultation paper, the Government scaled back their ambitions for the plan. The rather more conciliatory ministerial response to the consultation was that
the government has listened... In light of your feedback we are clear that we will not replicate other international routes by introducing traditional fixed immigration controls on all air and sea routes between the Republic of Ireland.
It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the intention was always to remove the common travel area, despite the title of the consultation document, Strengthening the Common Travel Area.
I now come to the delicious irony of clause 51, which was inserted by their lordships to limit the use of Orders in Council. That sits alongside the Prime Ministers presentation, shortly after he became Prime Minister, on constitutional reform and reducing the ability of Orders in Council to, in effect, legislate for the United Kingdom. Now, their lordships are insisting on removing the ability of Orders in Council to be used in that way. That irony should not be lost on the Committee when considering whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.
As the shadow Minister for counter-terrorism and security, it is my responsibility to listen carefully to the arguments advanced for the measure, particularly on security and counter-terrorist grounds. However, we should consider that the common travel area has served the peoples of our islands since the 1920s. It is a remarkable testament to the cool heads that prevailed immediately after the partition of the island of Ireland that all parties sought to maintain a common travel area. The CTA was maintained throughout the period of the troubles.
I realise that at present we face a very real terrorist threat in the United Kingdom, but it has not yet led to attacks on the scale or frequency of those we faced from the IRA. At a time when the IRA had bases in the Irish Republic and was planning attacks on the British mainland, we continued to allow the principle that travel between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland and travel from both to the British mainland should be unfetteredthat passports and other documents would not be required. Why then today does the minister think the CTA must be fundamentally altered?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is making very important points, I acknowledge; however, his argument is based on a misunderstanding of what the CTA is. It is based on the principle that once a person has been granted leave to enter one part of the CTA, they will not normally require leave to enter another part. Our proposals protect that principle, but requiring documentation can address the problem of third-country nationals, which is not what he is talking about at the moment. Does he accept the intent behind the policy?

Crispin Blunt: I accept the intent but not the practicality. The perfectly obvious alternative is to ensure that the CTA works. It is around the boundaries of the CTA that one wants to achieve control. One does not want to start setting up double systems of control, at considerable inconvenience and expense to all concerned.

David Hamilton: I have always understood that when any flight comes in from Ireland to any part of the United Kingdom, special treatment is given to that flight. That has always been the case. If a flight comes into Edinburgh from Dublin, the passengers do not go through the same system as everyone else. They never have done. There has been a special lane for Irish flights, especially during the troubles.

Crispin Blunt: Of course there was a special lane during the troubles, because there was a special threat, but there was not the need to change the immigration controls system within the CTA, even during the troubles.
I have carefully examined the arguments made by Lord West in another place and I listened to the Minister this morning in the hope of hearing convincing arguments on why we should override the constitutional, emotional, practical and financial objections to the measure, but I am afraid that none of the arguments stack up on examination. As part of the standard pattern of the Government scratching around for third-party endorsement for supposed security measures, SOCA suddenly produced new arguments about trafficking in Northern Ireland two days before Report in another place. The figure of 8,000 was introduced at a rather late stage.
Lord West referred to
examples of people of international counter-terrorism interest. 
What does that mean? The Government have to make a better case for making substantial changes in this area than a statement as bland and as undetailed as that. Lord West used the following metaphor:
I believe that this is happening because we are tightening up our borders by a raft of means. Rather like water finding an opening in a ship when it is sinking, those who have been thwarted are pushing at every single door. I have no doubt whatsoever that something has got to be done to block this breach in our defences.[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1111.]
I concede to Lord West in expertise on sinking ships. He was a distinguished commander in the Falklands when HMS Ardent had the misfortune to sink after being attacked by the Argentine air force when it was under his command. However, the gaping hole blown in the Governments argument is the UK-Ireland land border. That hole remains because it is impractical to address it. I will return shortly to how one could police that border and explain why it is impractical.
If one is going to come forward with measures such as this, one should understand what they mean to the people who will be subject to them. I turn to the arguments put forward by Lord Glentoran in another place. In the debate on Report that led to this measure being so roundly rejected, he said:
It occasionally gets forgotten that Northern Ireland is as integral a part of the United Kingdom as Yorkshire or Lancashire. I do not know what the Yorkshireman and the Lancashire folk would feel if they had to provide identification in the form of passports to travel from one county to the other. That is effectively what this Bill is doing for the Northern Ireland folk. Over the years we have had free travel, which has worked wonderfully. The reason that it was necessary and still is necessary is that those who benefit from it are, largely, the poorest in our society. A large number of people from both Ireland and Northern Ireland earn their living in England and Scotlandnot so much in Wales. They need to be able to travel freely, easily and without hassle to see their families from time to time when they can.
My noble Friend went on to say of Lord West:
I explained to the Minister this morning that the people of Northern Ireland will see this part of this Bill as another way of getting rid of them out of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that, whether you shake your heads or not, that is how it is perceived. I could talk to you very civilly and say that maybe it is not like that, but that is how the people in Belfast, Armagh and Londonderry will see itas another imposition and another move one step away from the unity with this nation and this Parliament for which most of those in Northern Ireland have been fighting for the past 40 years.[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1097, 1098.]
These are emotive and important matters.
In support of that argument, Lord Kilclooney said:
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran: it is offensive if it is suggested that the people of Northern Ireland are to be treated differently from people elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Is that because there is water between Northern Ireland and England? If so, why are the people of the Isle of Wight not treated differently?[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1107.]
A sense of identity and nationality are important to people. Therefore, the bar that one has to jump in introducing such measures should be correspondingly high.
The measure is also careless of the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and our Crown dependencies, particularly the Channel Islands. The Minister will be familiar with the arguments put forward by Lord Goodlad, who sits on the cross-party Constitution Committee in the other place that was quite devastating about the consultation, particularly with regard to the Channel Islands. He reported:
We found that such consultation as did take place gave the impression of being muddled and tardy, showing little appreciation of the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies. The Chief Minister of Jersey told your Lordships Select Committee that there is a mismatch between the policy intent and the possible effects of the legislative change.
He then quoted Senator Le Sueur, who said that that
opens the way, at any time of the UK Governments choosing, for the significant change of practice that they say they do not presently envisage.
Senator Le Sueur added:
There are absolutely no safeguards to prevent such controls being implemented or to protect the long-standing rights of Channel Islanders to travel freely to the United Kingdom, in accordance with their constitutional relationship as set out in numerous Royal Charters.[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1101-1102.]
The Select Committee of the other place concluded that it was
difficult to reconcile the modest policy aims stated by the Government (of occasionally, on the basis of intelligence, stopping and questioning people arriving from or departing to the Crown dependencies) with the far-reaching legal powers claimed by the proposed amendment to section 1 of the Immigration Act 1971 (which would enable fixed and routine border controls). This mismatch is in and of itself constitutionally inappropriate: Parliament should not grant to Government wide legal authority in excess of the powers properly needed to implement a proposed policy.
Those senses relate to what this means for the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Crown dependencies. Also, as the Government are having some difficulty agreeing a memorandum of understanding with the states of Jersey, I should be grateful if the Minister tells us whether things have improved since the failure to get the states of Jersey to sign up to this before report of the Bill in the other place.
I will now discuss the practicality of the measure. The gaping hole in this is the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The noble Lord West said he was familiar with that land border. I am too: I had brief familiarity with it in an earlier incarnation, and as a spokesman for the Conservative party on Northern Ireland, visiting there in 2002, to examine what was then the significant problem of gasolene smuggling over the border. It is easy to get lost between one side of that border and the other, and to be unsure of exactly which side one is on. Therefore, the practical policing of it is immensely difficult and produced a series of embarrassments to British soldiers trying to track the IRA during the troubles. You, Sir Nicholas, and other ex-soldiers such as I, will be more than familiar with that. I do not understand the practicalities of policing that borderof trying to differentiate between nationalities of the common travel area and non-CTA nationals. In this, happily, post-troubles environment, people who live in that area and travel around the border will not be anticipating carrying identity documents.
That has led the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has carefully examined a number of these details, to be concerned about the basis on which identification will take place. Its concern is that racial profiling will occur. It referred to the Republic of Irelands taking measures because of its concern about entry to the Republic from the UKsome of the gardais actions have bordered on racial profiling. The Minister will be aware that our authorities in Belfast have not been entirely immune from that; there was a substantial payout to a UK citizen of Nigerian origin who was improperly detained in that city.
Another argument advanced was that the measures would help address the source of organised crime. As the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission says in its evidence to the Committee,
It is unclear why, if agendas unconnected with immigration control are part of the CTA reforms, Government overlooked mentioning this in the CTA consultation documents, it is also unclear how the proposed routine immigration control activity on the land border targeting non-CTA nationals, could in any way address crime or security issues that are, on experience, much more likely to involve British and Irish citizens.
Given my experiencea little dated nowof seeing the nature of serious organised crime, particularly that of petrol smuggling across the border, either United Kingdom or Irish citizens were certainly the commissioners and executors of that scale of crime.
If the land border is to be policed properly, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission also raised concerns about the implications and whether the powers would be reminiscent of emergency-type powers that could act contrary to the normalisation of security arrangements under the Belfast agreement. Conservative Members oppose such a move. The scrapping of the common travel area and the placing of new burdens on those travelling between different parts of the United Kingdom, and between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man and, above all, the Irish Republic would be bad for business and an inconvenience to passengers and would, in any case, prove unworkable.
The Government say that such a provision will help fight crime. We do not believe that it would do so to a significant degree, nor do we believe that its impact would justify the measure. We believe strongly that, whatever potential benefits the amendment might bring, the Government have signally failed to explain their case, either on the record or by any other means. If there are to be distinctions between means of entry under the Bill, by which I mean if legislation bringing in increased controls is to apply exclusively to arrival by sea and air, that will surely encourage travellers to favour land routes between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. It must be the case that would-be terrorists or members of criminal gangs who already favour the land route would continue to do so, and it calls into question the logic of scrapping a CTA for air and sea travel. Furthermore, the impact on those carriers who operate between the north and the south would be substantial. Any additional burden placed on travellers will again drive them to use the land route, which, in effect, could not be policed.
Neither the noble Lord West in another place nor the Minister here has made a clear enough case for such a change in the law to persuade us to accept the Governments amendments. Do they have evidence that is more substantial than the line used by Lord West that there are some people of interest in international counter-terrorism? If so, we really need to do better than that and to know and understand matters. We can then get a proper handle on why the measure is being brought forward. If the issue is so important, why is the measure being rushed through now rather than being brought forward under another Bill that will permit more time for consideration and allow it to find its place with the other measures that have been postponed for examination?
The hon. Member for Rochdale alluded to expense. The benefits are unquantified and unquantifiable, but some of the costs have been identified. The wide-ranging estimate of border control staff costs is between £2.5 million to £4.5 million each year. If there was to be an attempt to make the measure work by policing a land border properly, the figures would rocket upwards. The reduced output to tourism over the medium term due to reduced travel is estimated at approximately £43.5 million over 10 years. If the measure resulted in queues and inconvenience at airports and seaports, in particular for the Channel Islands where tourism is such a vital part of their industry, the scale of that damage could be significantly understated in the impact assessment.
The Minister stressed that his proposed changes do not affect leave to remain but simply add an element of control. The Government have consistently taken opportunities to increase control and to accrue powers to the state. The Minister underestimates the distaste that our citizens now have for the constant demands for further paperwork and further forms of identity as they go about their business within their own borders. That should apply no less to our citizensfellow subjectsfrom Northern Ireland than to those from anywhere else in the United Kingdom. As expressed in the debates in another place, Northern Ireland is as much part of the United Kingdom as Surrey or Lancashire. There may well be benefits to the police or to customs officials if they could insist on seeing paperwork from travellers between those counties, but it would be the most enormous affront to their residence. The same applies to those in Northern Ireland, who face the prospect of an age-old travel regime being ripped up without satisfactory justification.
The powers of search that apply at our ports and airports are not inconsequential, as I am sure the Minister knows from closely following the debate when the new code of practice for examining officers was recently revised and approved by statutory instrument. The power for further passport checks adds to feelings among ordinary passengers that they are going about their business under a cloud of suspicion. Also, with this Government, when new laws bringing in new controls are introduced, there is a tendency for them to be extended, for their scope to be enlarged and for the powers to be abused. Mission creep is endemic to the Governments approach to law and order and counter-terrorism. The Opposition Benches are properly sceptical, and sadly we must be no less sceptical when organised crime and terrorism are cited as the reasons for a new measure without satisfactory evidence. The Government have lost the benefit of the doubt in this area. That is, by the way, another reason why we need a new Government with a new mandate.
I have considered the financial aspects of the measures, but we have to present an alternative to meet the concerns expressed by the Government. Obviously, that would be improving the external boundaries of the common travel area in co-operation with the authorities of the Irish Republic and of the Crown dependencies. Why can we not follow that alternative route? Should it not be possible to put in place controls in the Republic of Ireland? They could be satisfactory, so that fraud such as the one that the Minister adduced from the Daily Express can be properly identifiedaccepting that that one was properly identified.
Surely there is no lack of willingness on the part of the Irish authorities to co-operate in that area. The Minister has already told the Committee that they are concerned about illegal immigration into the Republic of Ireland from the United Kingdom. Surely that is an area of obvious common interest. Setting up the proper e-Borders scheme for both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland would achieve the objectives set out by the Government. That is an obvious alternative strategy for us to pursue.
I want to conclude by asking the Minister to tell us why he sees the steps in the measures as so critical. Are there reasons that he has not yet been prepared to share with the Committee? The amendment effectively scraps the common travel area, discriminates between different British subjects and burdens the residents of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, as well as citizens of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. It would end the long-established principle of the common travel area and it would do so at significant cost, for the Government and the travel industry. Now is hardly the time to be undermining tourist operators embraced by the common travel area across the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland and the Channel Islands.
An account of the distinguished service of the noble Lord West in the Falkland Islands described the time after his ship was hit by an Argentine bomb:
Barely an hour after the first Argentine bomb had struck the stem of HMS Ardent as it stood guard over the main Falkland landings, the ships steering was gone and the frigate was no longer capable of defending itself. West had no choice. He gave the order to abandon ship.
The policy produced by the Government is no longer capable of defending itself. I suggest gently to the Minister that it is time for him to abandon ship.

Tom Brake: I start by reassuring the Minister that although in an earlier exchange he referred to Liberal Democrat party policy on immigration being libertarian, I know that he actually knows it is nothing of the sort: it is firm, fair and effective. I would not want his suggestion to stay on the record without my challenging it. That is why we have long campaigned to reimpose the exit controls to which the Minister referred earlier.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reigate, who gave a passionate defence of the common travel area. It was only slightly marred, perhaps, by his original reference to sinking ships in the Falklands, although he recovered his position slightly in his latter reference to that. He had many valid points that I shall not seek to go over again. However, the Minister, opening the debate on this clause, underlined the close
social, economic and cultural ties
that exist between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. He recognised that, but regrettably the measures that he proposes do not seem to take those ties into considerationor, certainly, the considerable social and economic impact that these proposals will have. That is even though those impacts have been carefully identified; the cost to tourism, for instance, is clearly listed, as are the staffing costs. There is recognition, then, that these proposals have an impact, which is documented; yet the Government are seeking to proceed with them in any case.
The proposals clearly will impact significantly on ethnic minority communities, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale will also seek to take part in the debate on this clause, perhaps with a more personal angle on the matter that we are discussing, the common travel area. However, we have concerns on, for instance, the proposals for a very restrictive list of documents that would be acceptablenotably, just a passport or identity card. We are also concerned about the potential for a criminal offence to be created or made if someone travelling refuses to produce documents.
We welcome the fact that the Government have given some assurances over there being no fixed checkpoints on the land border, but like the hon. Member for Reigate, I should like further clarification on precisely what sort of targeted operations it will be possible to mount in a border area that the hon. Gentleman knows much better than I, but which is clearly fluid. There is a lot of travel, but the precise location of the border is not necessarily known and many participants in criminal activities are, indeed, British or Irish citizens, so some clarity from the Government of precisely how they think these targeted operations will be able to deliver might provide some reassurance. The costs, as the hon. Gentleman has outlined, of the infrastructure that might be required to implement this may well have been significantly underestimated.
I have one further point to which I hope the Minister might be able to respond. As he knows, we have our differences on some aspects of the e-Borders system but if the Republic of Ireland develops its system alongside the developments in ours, does that create the potential for reducing checks at any point in future? Our position is that the Minister has said and done nothing in his opening remarks that leads us to believe that the clause should be removed in the way that he wishes. Unless he can provide clarification of an outstanding nature, I suspect that we will join the Conservatives in a Division, should the matter be pressed to a vote.

David Anderson: I want to talk specifically about the situation of the land bordering Northern Ireland. As someone who has spent much of the last 20 years working in Northern Ireland, I am pleased by the progress that is being made. One of the great experiences of the last 10 years has been the fact that every time someone travels from Northern Ireland to the Republic, they no longer have to go through the checkpoints and controls that were once there. Despite the fact that the CTA was in place, it was routine for people to be stopped and searched. That was not because there was immigration control down that side; it was because it was our soldiers who had to do that. One of the great things is that that no longer happens. However, even with those things in place, there was clearly an easily accessible border, particularly for those who committed acts of terrorism. People were going backwards and forwards across the border with relative ease, even under those circumstances.
For the last four years, until January, I served on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Two years ago, we produced a report into serious organised crime, working with the security forces from north and south of the border, and from this side of the Irish sea. The difference between the Isle of Wight and the Isle of Man, and the Republic and Northern Ireland, is the very porous border. It is not only fuel that comes over the border, although illegal fuel smuggling has reduced. That is mainly because there is no longer the financial incentive, due to the coming together of the price of fuel in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, which is now much closer than it was two, three or four years ago.
Along with fuel, there were massive amounts of cigarettes, both real and counterfeit, and huge amounts of alcohol, particularly alcohol that had been laundered and was dangerouseven more dangerous than the alcohol most of us partake in. There were surprising things such as washing powder, huge amounts of which were being brought across the border and being sold on the cheap. It was not genuine. The boxes said what it was, but there were dubious articles inside. There was a huge traffic. There were also serious concerns about the amount of people who were being brought across the border due to people trafficking and, although not listed in the figures, there was a worry about illegal immigration.
Those are real issues that must be looked into. Those activities are happening despite the fact that we have probably the best co-operation anywhere in the world between the police force in Northern Ireland and the people in the Garda. Bodies work together at every level. Security bodies work together but this is still going on. The situation is very different from that in the rest of the country, and it must be looked at.
The issues that have been raised are real, and we must look at the practicality of what is being proposed. The Minister has been talking about specific intelligence, but the response given in the House of Lords when the Minister in the other place was pressed on what he meant and what would happen in practice, was that we would
target the odd bus, minibus or taxi, because our experience has shown that those are much more likely to be a threat[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1100.]
That might work a little, but will it really get to grips with the problem? If the border is as porous as many of us believe, how will we make a real impact in practice? Unless the Minister intends to do this seriouslyand nobody is suggesting that we have total control of the borderthe reality is that we will waste our time. We need to look at that.
An issue has been raised by the hon. Member for Reigate about the possibility of racial profiling. That causes real concern to those of us in the House who are interested in human rights. The experience from Northern Ireland, where ad hoc checks have been going on for some time, has seen human rights bodies, from both sides of the border, raise concerns about the fact that people are being profiled, stopped and asked questions simply on the basis of the colour of their skin. That is something that I hope this Administration will never support.
There is a real need to do this and to do it right. However, in doing so, we must ensure that we respect the fact that there are practicality issues and that we get the balance right. However, we also have to be clear that we do not want to undermine the confidence that we have built up during the past decade among the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic. Not everyone who lives in Northern Ireland wants to be part of the United Kingdom. A significant minority in that part of the world do not want to be part of the United Kingdom and we have to respect that, as well as respecting the views of the other side.

Paul Rowen: In considering new legislation, it is incumbent on all of us to weigh up the advantages and to consider how the proposals presented in the Bill deliver on their stated purpose. From this mornings debate and the debate in the other place, it is clear that the Government have patently failed to explain to us the benefits of the changes to the common travel area.
The costs have been clearly quantifiedbetween £2.5 million and £4.5 million in increased staffing costs on border controls and £43.5 million in loss of tourismbut the Minister has patently failed to give us any quantifiable measure of the reduction in reported asylum cases, illegal migrants or cross-border crime. If the Minister cannot quantify what the benefits will be, perhaps he would be good enough to give us the figures for the past ten years in terms of asylum seekers who have travelled via Ireland or the Channel Islands to the UK.

Phil Woolas: That is the point.

Paul Rowen: The point is that such figures cannot be given.

Phil Woolas: It is precisely because we cannot give the hon. Gentleman that figure that we want the powers to be able to give it to him in future.

Paul Rowen: When we are considering legislation that will lead to increased costs to the Government and losses in terms of employment and tourism, that is simply not good enough. There must be some sort of figure. Both Ireland and the UK operate within the common travel area and are outside the Schengen agreement. Indeed, as has been said, the common travel area predates the Schengen agreement. We operate a common border, so we rely on existing border controls in Ireland and the Channel Islands to stop illegal migrants.
If the Government are seriously saying that those border controls are inadequate and do not stop illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, what has the Minister been doing for the past few years in terms of working with our Irish counterparts or the Governments in Guernsey and Jersey to ensure that those borders are secure? That is clearly not the point. This measure is a total overreaction to a problem. The Government are trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer and unless the Minister can quantify the size of the nut, such measures are clearly unacceptable.
I speak as someone who is half Irish and who spent most of my early years travelling between Ireland and England every year. As the hon. Member for Reigate said, the sorts of control on which the Minister is insisting will completely destroy the common travel area. If he seriously wants to do something about stopping illegal immigrants and obtaining more information on the matter, there is a way around the problem, which was outlined in the other place in an answer that Lord West gave:
Outside the CTA reforms we are also considering other changes. Under Section 14 of the Police and Justice Act 2006, the police have the power to require carriers to provide passenger data on specified domestic air and sea routes. That power could be extended to cover routes between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2009; Vol. 708, c. 768-9)
I put it to the Minister that at far less cost to the travel industry and to the convenience of travellers between Ireland, the Channel Islands and Northern Ireland, the Government could implement section 14 of the Police and Justice Act 2006. That, coupled with the establishment of a unified border police, which is our partys policy, as well as Conservative policy, would provide the Government with the intelligence they need to prevent people from entering this country if there is reason to suggest that such people are doing so illegally. The controls already exist in the common travel area, operated by the Irish Government and the Channel Island Governments, to prevent illegal immigrants. Those controls, and working with our partners in Ireland and the Channel Islands and using the Criminal Justice Acts, would give all the powers the Government need to resolve what is so far an unquantifiable problem. If they cannot quantify it, one is tempted to ask whether it really exists.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Member for Ashford said in his opening remarks in our first sitting that we would deal with the consensual sections of the Bill first, and move to the more contentious ones next weekthat is, today. His prophesy has proved correct.
The hon. Member for Reigate said that I failed to produce a convincing argument. I put it to you, Sir Nicholas, that the hon. Gentleman has failed to listen to a convincing argument. He has come here with a predetermined view, so I shall try to repeat the main points of the argument.
The hon. Gentleman said that either he had and the other place had misunderstood, or the Government had failed to put forward an argument. My contention, quite genuine and heartfelt, is that the arguments being put against our proposals are not fair because they address proposals that we have not put. They are based on a misunderstanding, as Lord West outlined in his closing remarks, in column 1111 of Hansard in the other place.
I shall dissect the main arguments. The accusation is made that we are abolishing the common travel area. The CTA is about freedom of movement for Irish nationals and British and UK citizens between those two countries and the dependenciesthe islands. The CTA remains in place; that freedom of movement continues to exist. The power we are seeking from the Houses of Parliament is the power to require documentation for the purposes of proof of legitimacy of leave of entry to Ireland or the UK, in order that we can identify third-country nationals who do not have leave to remain. The power does not entitle my officials to stop a legitimate person travelling. It requires the person to produce identification; it does not give officials the power to stop that freedom of movement if the person has leave to enter the UK or the Republic of Ireland. The central principle of the CTA, which has existed since 1920, remains. That is the first point.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Reigate says that there is a gaping hole in our UK borderthe land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. His solution to that gaping hole is to fill it with nothing, and instead to say that the problem I am trying to solve does not actually exist. It is incumbent on me to show that it does.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman says that the solution to the problem is to work with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that the external border of the CTA is protected by the electronic borders system. Yet his party opposes that systemit is okay to have it in the Republic of Ireland, but not to have it in the United Kingdom.

Damian Green: That is one of the many things the Minister misquotes. He ignores the fact that his Government removed controls between Britain and other EU countries in 1998. He also wilfully misstates the position when he says that we oppose the e-borders system. We oppose the fact that it is being implemented in the most intrusive way possible on innocent British tourists, but we do not oppose the principle of checking people in and out.

Phil Woolas: Once again, we see the Conservative party trying to reconcile its authoritarian instinct with its liberal appeal. The hon. Gentleman said, although he was not prepared to put it in these words, that he supports the electronic borders system. He then went on to say that he opposes intrusion on the innocent. How am I to identify the innocent? How am I to do that in practice, without the very limited pieces of information that he calls on the Republic of Ireland to have, but not the citizens of the United Kingdom? In attempting to square the circle, the Conservative policy has become preposterous. The hon. Gentleman requires the protection of the United Kingdom border to be incumbent on an electronic borders system that contains information on individuals travelling to the Republic of Ireland, when he is not prepared to have that system for our own country. I cannot go to Parliament with that proposition. It is not feasible.
Further, the hon. Member for Reigate says that the proposal failed to be justified in the other place. He misses out a central fact that Lord West put on the record in summing up that debate, and which I used in my opening remarks. That fact has been completely ignored in the speeches opposing the proposals. I suspect that Members wrote those speeches before they had heard the argument, which is that what we propose for our side of the common travel area has been in place in the Republic of Ireland for 10 years. Lord West stated:
The Republic of Ireland introduced border controls in 1997 so that third country nationals travelling from within the common travel area
the United Kingdom
to the republic, by air or sea, must present a passport or ID card.[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1111.]
That measure has existed in the Republic of Ireland for third country nationals for 10 years. The hon. Member for Rochdale says, Oh, I like to travel to Ireland, and whips up the sentiment that somehow the proposals will affect cultural and economic links between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom; they will not. The Republic has been using those provisions for 10 years. The hon. Gentleman calls for the protection of the United Kingdom borders to be given over to the Republic of Ireland, but will not allow me to do what the Republic of Ireland has been doing within the common travel area since 1997.

Paul Rowen: I understand the Ministers point, but will he also confirm that the Irish Government do not require British citizens to present a British passport when they enter Ireland? That is where the big difference lies.

Phil Woolas: The requirement is that British citizens must prove that they are British. That is usually done with a passport, but other documents are accepted, and that is what I propose. The fact that the hon. Gentleman does not notice anything as he moves in and out of the Republic of Ireland shows that my proposals would not cause the practical disruption to the travelling public that other people fear. In the real world, the carriersthe airlines and the sea routeswant to have passports or another form of ID, precisely so that people cannot bulk-buy cheap tickets and flog them down the pub. That is what happens in the real world.

Paul Rowen: I understand the Ministers point, but is that situation not already covered by the Police and Justice Act 2006, which requires the carrier to provide the information, without the extra cost of between £2.5 million and £4.5 million that you propose?

Nicholas Winterton: Order. The Minister is proposing that, not me.

Phil Woolas: I suspect that you would agree with me, Sir Nicholas.
I was interested in the hon. Gentlemans point about the read-across. Let us be clear, we are talking about immigration. I will come to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon in a moment, as I wish to agree strongly with what he has said.
At present, if the Northern Ireland police force, the UK Border Agency, the Garda, the French and the south American authorities have knowledge of a route that has opened up into the UK through the Republic of Ireland, we do not have the power under immigration law to stop at our border a third-country national who has come into the Republic of Ireland illegally. That means that we have to take that burden, even when we know or have strong reason to believe that the person is acting illegally under immigration law. We would have to watch them. The hon. Member for Ashford looks puzzled, but it goes on every week of the year. At the moment, if we are aware of some operation going on across the land border, we do not have the power to stop people at the border, although we do in other areas, as he said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon is right. When the Home Affairs Committee looked at gasoline smuggling, it called for powers to stop people at the border based on specific intelligence-led operations. That is exactly the point that I am making in relation to immigration, but of course sentiment is being whipped up.
Mr. Andersonrose

Nicholas Winterton: Order. Before the hon. Member for Blaydon intervenes, I feel that I must put on the record that, whatever personal views I hold, in the Chair I am scrupulously impartial and will always be so.

David Anderson: I want to confirm what the Minister said with regard to travelling not just to the Republic of Ireland, where people have to travel with a passport. When we were travelling from Newcastle to Belfast, we were advised to take our passports with us, even though Northern Ireland is within the United Kingdom.
I am glad that the Minister reminded me about the Home Affairs Committee. During our discussions in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee about the size of the problems across the border faced by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, a suggestion was advanced by Northern Ireland Members that we bring the rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland down to that in the Republic. That was supported by Conservative members of the Committee, which shows how big the issue is.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend makes an important point and brings pragmatic experience to bear.
I shall turn quickly to the various examples I was asked about. This is not some academic debate. We have not put up some patsy because we want to have a controversial debate; it is an attempt to strengthen our border.
I must be fair to Committee members. A number of questions were asked, so I shall try to answer them. It is already an offence under the 1971 Act to refuse to provide documents without reasonable excuse. We have made it clear that we will not require documents on the land border or from Crown dependencies, so there would be reasonable excuse in such cases.
The hon. Member for Reigate asked about the progress made with Jersey. We have ongoing discussions on the memorandum of understanding with the other islands. There was a meeting yesterday. We are inviting Jersey to take part in those discussions, so that the memorandum of understanding on the practices and practical arrangements can be agreed, and we hope that Jersey responds, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the current position.
A point was made about people trafficking. There are a number of instances when, with the limited powers we have already, we have apprehended people, which backs up the points I am making. I will give Committee members some intelligence and information. To refer to a question put earlier, there are approximately 15.4 million passenger movements between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies by air and sea. I acknowledge that it is a huge issue.
On the exploitation of illegal immigration, we have been carrying out pilot studies on the powers. Just to give Committee members some snapshots, in one week in January 2007, 158 offenders who did not qualify for entry to the UK were identified at Belfast, Londonderry, Dublin, Holyhead, Liverpool airport and Rosslare port. The north-west port team refused eight passengers further leave to enter on one day, in the operation we conducted in Holyhead in April 2009. Those are examples of the daily bread and butter work of the UKBA, in identifying third party nationals who are abusing that route.
A number of assurances have been sought about the application of equal rights, about discrimination and so on. Of course, we are committed to the application of equal rights and we are banned by law from discriminating. That approach is adopted across the ports and airports of the UK and indeed across our juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium.
I think I have answered the questions about the Crown dependencies in relation to Jersey. We are seeking to get memorandums of understanding. Of course, our main concern is the Republic of Ireland, and I hope that I have put forward convincing arguments that the CTA is being maintained. I believe that the strength of feeling on the issue reflects a misunderstanding and that is the point that the change to the CTA is addressing. The change is not addressing the right of movement of people with legitimate right to be in the Republic of Ireland or the UK, but of third-country non-EEA nationals who do not have that right.
Our contention, as Lord West outlined in the other place, is that there is a loophole in our border controls. There is a suggestion that we should rely exclusively on co-operation with the Republic of Ireland, but if I were to suggest that in relation to, say, France, a country with which we also have good relationships, I suspect that I would not remain the Minister for Borders and Immigration much longer. I certainly will not do so for much longer if I do not draw my remarks to a conclusion, because the Government Whip, my hon. Friend to my right, is urging me to allow the Committee to make its decision.
I have put my argument, I have answered the questions and I hope that the Committee supports me.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 51 disagreed to.

Clause 52

Restriction on Studies

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 52, page 43, line 28, at beginning insert
where leave is granted for the purpose of studies in the United Kingdom,.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 58, in clause 52, page 43, line 29, at end insert
(ib) a condition restricting his studies to an education institution registered as a sponsor of non-EU nationals.
(1A) An educational institution registered as a sponsor of non-EU nationals must be defined as a University, Institute, Royal College or College under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1685)..
New clause 10Restriction on studies: further definition
(1) The Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1685) are amended by inserting College in column (1) of the Schedule.
(2) Section 2(1)(b) of the Business Names Act 1985 (c.7) does not apply to the carrying on of the business under a name which includes the word college by a person
(a) to whom the business is transferred on or after the date on which section 52 came into force; and
(b) who carries on the business under the name which was its lawful business name and immediately before that transfer,
during the twelve months beginning with the date of the transfer.
(3) Section 2(1)(b) of the Business Names Act 1985 (c.7) shall not apply to the carrying on of the business under a name which includes a word college by a person who
(a) carried on that business immediately before the date on which section 52 came into force; and
(b) continues to carry it on under the name which immediately before that date was its lawful name..

Damian Green: These are fast-moving times and later in my remarks I shall come to what the new Further Education Minister said to the Select Committee on Home Affairs this morning, as I have been apprised of that. I am delighted that the Government are thinking along the same lines as one of our amendmentsas they should be, of course, with all our amendments. The issue of student visas is clearly hugely important, as the Minister has acknowledged. There have been several scandals in recent years. In a sense it is hardly surprising.
There are two amendments and a new clause in the group, and I shall divide the group in two: amendment 57 deals with one issue, and amendment 58 and new clause 10 deal with another. However, they have a common background, which is worth setting out, as it concerns numbers, and the sheer scale of potential abuse of the system.
Between 2004 and 2008 nearly 825,000 student visas were issued, and in 2007 alone 358,000 non-EEA students were admitted to the UK. That is an increase of 16 per cent. on the previous year. Student cases were the largest group of after-entry visa decisions in 2007, accounting for 37 per cent. of the total number of about 145,000 people. In that context it is interesting to see what percentage were successful, and the answer for 2006 was 66 per cent. of applicants for student visas. An estimate from Universities UKthe Minister may have better figures at his disposalis that 25 per cent. of appeals against the initial decision are successful. That suggests that there are significant problems in the entry clearance system.
I do not think that there will be any division in the Committee about the idea that we are all supportive of foreign students; certainly UK universities are, not least because of the revenue that those students bring, but we are also supportive of them as a country. Conservative MPs often make the point that one purposeperhaps the main oneof the immigration system should be to enable Britain to attract its fair share, or perhaps more than its fair share, of the brightest and best from around the world, to support and promote our economic growth.
Clearly, the universities play an extremely large part in that, by introducing some of the brightest students from around the world to this country, a proportion of whom will inevitably want to make their life here. Even without that longer-term advantage, the Home Office estimates that in 2007 international students contributed £8.5 billion to the UK economy each year. That is a very positive background against which the many serious problems that emerge need to be addressed.
The Minister has described the student visa system as the Achilles heel of the immigration system. [Interruption.] He says that he was talking about the old system. He is in the throes of introducing a new one, which may or may not improve it, but he and I would certainly agree that the system that he describes as the old onewhich is of course the one he and his predecessors have operated for the past 12 yearsis the Achilles heel of the immigration system.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. Before I adjourn the Committee until four oclock this afternoon, I congratulate hon. Members on the quality of the debate on clause 51. It was very interesting to be in the Chair.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Four oclock.